The bow tie is what really sells it, though.

I can't argue with you there. I really miss Al Franken doing his senator Paul Simon schtick.

Damn, those poor souls. You just said you assure us all that you are the same person IRL as you present yourself online. How many times have you dusted your feet? And you would be the one person to testify of your "reputation" for having love towards the disaffected. I doubt anyone else would.

Kishkumen, nice find with that citation. It is funny watching Will try to squirm out of yet another example of his duplicity. He claims X only because he doesn't think anyone will bother to prove Y. This has always been his game?

Very well said, David. It's folks like you that give liberal (yet active) Mormons like me hope in the Church's future (Will and his ilk have the opposite effect, imo).

Will is to the sane Mormon what Sarah Palin is to David Frum.

lizzie:

A fair question.

Here’s the relevant passage from my original post:


Let’s first parse David’s dramatic commentary on what I said:

There is, of course, nothing whatsoever in my post that makes reference to “personal connections with unnamed others.” I’m not sure what eisegetical tick led David to that conclusion, but it is not warranted by the text, nor by my intent.

He continues:

Again, I’m not sure what eisegetical tick led David to that conclusion, but it is not warranted by the text, nor by my intent.

What I did say is that “I am not the only one who is watching.” And so it is. Many people have followed David’s recent posting history with interest. Among these are people who would very much like to have a trained Old Testament scholar among the ranks of the faithful Latter-day Saints. It is a fascinating and potentially instructive field of study. However, many of those watching, including myself, have found themselves feeling uncomfortable with some of David’s interpretations, as well as the frequently condescending and authoritative fashion in which he has advocated for those interpretations. One of these “watchers” felt that some of David’s statements amounted to, in his words, “getting ahead of the Brethren.” While I don’t necessarily believe that phrase fully encapsulates the nature of my personal discomfort with some of David’s exegetical postures, it will suffice for my purposes in the present context.

For example, David, on several occasions, quite explicitly criticized the modern leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ for failing (in his opinion) to feel the same urgency he does about implementing the Law of Consecration. Doing so immediately caused a warning siren to sound in the minds of many “watchers,” and thereby served to diminish his (David’s) perceived authority and reliability as a faithful expounder of scriptural import. This diminuition of perceived reliability has thus had the effect of increasing the distance between David’s manifest aspirations to be considered a reliable source for faithful scriptural exegesis, and the previous extent of the possibilities he has to fill that role over the course of his life.

Additionally, his increasing propensity to identify with and find common cause with a number of undeniably confirmed apostates (not “members struggling with their faith,” but clear-cut cases of confirmed and active apostasy) has further eroded his credibility among those who hoped to look to him for reliable (and faithful) scriptural exegesis. Again, this diminuition of perceived reliability has thus had the effect of increasing the distance between David’s manifest aspirations to be considered a reliable source for faithful scriptural exegesis, and the previous extent of the possibilities he has to fill that role over the course of his life.

Now, returning again to David’s erroneous exegesis of my statement, one is led to wonder what might have induced him to jump so precipitously to the conclusion he did?

I suspect it is because there are other people—people with whom I have little or no personal connection—who are also assessing David’s future suitability for a position over which they have direct responsibility. I am not privy to such things, but apparently David is, and therefore I can imagine that, if he felt there was potentially something in his public message board communications that would lead such persons to have reactions similar to those I describe above, then it could also have a direct impact on his more immediate aspirations of employment. I cannot speak to that question with any degree of certainty, but David’s reaction seems to bear out the correctness of my suspicions.

Needless to say, my comments were very much general in nature, whereas David’s reaction and concerns were very much specific. I, of course, could not have anticipated his misperception of my meaning, and the relationship of that misperception to a set of circumstances about which I know nothing. All I could do is contradict his interpretation—which contradiction he has summarily rejected, as he has continued to promote—with the zeal of a dedicated martyr—his eisegetical perspective on the matter.

I hope that adequately answers your question, liz. I can't imagine that I will have much, if anything, more to say of the matter.

I wasn't aware that Will had found it a fitting comment as well. But, then, I obviously haven't been following Will's posts as closely as you. I like Will, but not enough to stalk him like you. LOL

Feel free to assume it the highest praise not to find this funny either. Those, like yourself, who are desparate for praise, must get in any way they can, even if through flights of shear imagination.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Of course, we all understand that Will loves to engage in speaking on behalf of this body, imagined or real, of fellow travelers who are looking on with a great measure of consternation and disapproval as David challenges people to live up to the Gospel they profess and have covenanted to live. Obviously David can look forward to the same kind of trouble Hugh Nibley is experiencing right now as one who dared to admonish important men among the saints.

Another fifth-columnist apostate evangelist singing the praises of the most popular Mormon in The Great and Spacious Trailer Park. With the understandable exception of the nut case thews, it appears the voting has been unanimous in the affirmative.

Sure. More likely you lack the wits to come up with your own material.



Yeah, when people respond to my posts, I am known to read them. SHOCKER!!!!

(Is this wade character for real?)



If I were desperate for praise, I would be courting idiots like you.

To be fair, when I saw all of this unfold yesterday I was quite confused at David's allegations regarding Will's comments. I could not figure out how Will's comments said anything close to what David was suggesting. I really really tried. All I could only get the meaning that Will described above.

Miscommunication/misunderstanding seem apparent as one issue that sours their relationship. I've been very fond of David's position regarding his social justice ideas as of late. I don't think I've seen anything resembling David being critical of LDS leaders in particular. If I'm right, I think its another misunderstanding.

Well, stem, it seems to me that you can't walk into the middle of something that has been going on for a little while and hope to understand it in its full context. When you have researched the history of the exchanges between these two men back to the existence of MA&D and followed it up to the present, then I will be interested in what you think at that point.

Context really does matter.

Kishkumen,

that is what I settled upon yesterday. There must be some nuanced esoteric meaning behind Will's words that only a very select few got. If so, it doesn't seem like Will is in on the know. And if that is the case, then there's no reason for David to assume as he did.

Again, its apparent to me that miscommunication is a big part of the issue between the two, and its getting worse.

I have witnessed certain exchanges from them in the past. I recall two or so years ago (it might have been last year as far as my memory works) they expressed some pretty heated things towards each other. It caught me a bit off guard at that point. Anyway, since then I've noticed much the same and have paid some bit of attention to it, although I really don't know much if anything what it's like to walk in either one of their pairs of shoes.

Nevermind

I don't doubt that the denizens here will buy this caricature. But, I wonder if they will buy Kish's claim to being "detached from either side." Certainly, there has been no detectable bias in what he has said throughout the thread.

Be that as it may, were this not MD, I would think it odd that a thread intended to be about assertaining the critics' perceptions of David, would turn into yet another thread bashing Will.

I suppose, in a way, this answers Will's question. David's appealing approach has clearly affected a positive change towards civility among his admirers here.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It would certainly take an idiot to think you deserving of praise. i don't.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

David, in light of these latest statements by Will, I concur that you have every reason to believe that Will has played (and will continue to play) a significant role in 'the rumor mill' (for lack of a better term) trying to harm you professionally.


Just further confirmation of the above.

I am touched by this, Rollo. Will this renewed hope cause you to scale back on your LDS related conspiratorial smear campaigns? Judging from your post above, it doesn't appear that way.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I have never engaged in an "LDS-related smear campaign," so there is nothing to "scale back." But, be of good cheer, for I shall continue to engage in the discovery of truth.

Which part, specifically, do you object to?



Since when have I ever claimed to be without bias regarding Will's atrocious behavior? I am very biased against it. I detest it. Why on earth would anyone claim to be unbiased about something so low?

You're really quite odd, wade.



Probably because Will intended to use the thread against David, which is, of course, low. But evidently you think bad behavior should be applauded and not objected to.



I do find it refreshing to see that many people, whether critic or believer, object to Will's bad behavior. It restores one's faith in humanity.

Your criticisms are praise to my eyes. Keep up the good work.